10/30/2010

Is documentary as good as the access a filmmaker is able to obtain? In most cases yes although I’ve seen a number of boring films with great access to their subjects. “Thieves by law” succeeds bringing to us three real Russian gangsters. Two of them admit their murderous and chilling past, the third, the most famous one, plays an innocent, yet does not particularly bother to hide his amusement with the situation.

Actually just after the screening I was not convinced that the characters were real. It was too much of good stuff from the filmmaking point of view. I thought that perhaps it was all staged. Then I learned that one of the heros (the "innocent" one) is on the FBI most wanted list as the most famous Russian mob figure. OK, it’s a real documentary, showing real gangsters.

Their agreement to appear in the film says volumes about our times. The fact that they openly give interviews and that, after seeing the film, whoever wants to could probably quite easily locate them, even though they are on the Interpol search list, proves that what they do is pretty much sanctioned by the powers that run the show on this planet. Obviously the film is done only by the grace of its heros, as it clearly serves their PRs, personal whims or other objectives.

If it’s true that 20% of the world’s financial trade is mafia based no wonder the guys in the documentary don’t hide their faces, nor do they mind telling stories of killings they committed in the past.

Alexander Gentelev, who has made the documentary, supposedly in the ‘90s survived a bullet because of a thick wand of notes in his breast pocket. Alexander appears briefly on screen. He does look like a guy who can access powerful gangsters, make them talk and walk away alive. Bravo.

The most mysterious is a poker face gangster who having retired from mafia (yeah, right) wants to be a film director. However watching the sequence about his filmmaking plans (which I think includes a real snuff clip) there is a sense that perhaps for the first time in his life, he faces a challenge he may not be ready for.

In a subtly implied inference the film at this point seems to be saying that even a ruthless, smart and powerful gangster most likely will fold trying to make a (good) film. Because it takes more than mastering intimidation, stealing and murdering in cold blood to become a good filmmaker.

Watchingmovies back to back sometimessharpenstheirotherwise single perception. Such was a case whenafter a shocking “The Game of Death” I saw “The Singularity is near”.

“The Game of Death” repeats a famed Stanley Milgram’s 1961 experiment. Milgramfound out that 62% of his participants, mindlessly and heartlesslyobeyingauthority, wereinflictingcruelty to otherhumans. 60 yearslater, in a TV reality show medium, the percentage of the willingexecutionersrose to 81%. Watchingthisdocumentary made me sick in my stomach. Itdid not happenhoweverbecause, as a The Huffington Post reviewerclaimed, the doc was a gratuitousexploitation of the worst in televisionwhilepretending to critqueit. It was not. Ratherit was nauseatingbecauseithonestly, brutally and skillfullyrevealed a sad truth of ournature.

Locatingitself on the other end of the spectrum, “The Singularity” addresseswonders of the upcomingmerger of high-tech with human biology and the universe. In a fewdecadesnanorobots will clean up ourbodies and allowourminds to retainwastencyclopedicknowledge. Rocks and matter will turnintocomputingfields for more tech power. Wonderful. The onlyquestion is: will it make us better as human beings? Raymond Kurzweil, at least in his film, seems to be littleconcernedwith the factthat we arefailing as species, creatingoceans of moral and social catastrophes and are completelyunprepared for giftsthat the splendid technological and biologicalrevolutionoffers.

I havereservations not onlywithphilosophical and sociologicalshortcomings of the way the future opportunitiesarepresented in the film, but alsowith the crafting of the message. The narration is high on technological vision, whichwhileclearlymonumental, important and stimulating, is neverthelesspresented in a too fast, tooshallow and strangelyoutdatedfashion. Granted, the heraldedupcomingglory of nanotechnology, exponentialtechnologicalgrowth and AI explosion is trulyfantastic. Yet the film showsit in a cartoonish way, racing and obsessing over technologicalwonderswithlittle or no concernwiththeirhumanisticimplications or lack of them.

Red light goes up when front credits state thatthat Raymond "Ray" Kurzweil is a “co-director”. In addition one learnsthat the interviewsweredirected by a yetanother person. Unfortunatelywhatfollowsdoes not dispelconcerns. The exchanges between Kurzweil and the experts look like created in the editing room with both interlocutors shot in different time and space. The film feelslike a giant ego trip and a promotionalvehicle for the otherwisebrilliant and extremelyaccomplishedguy. Overdoing his mundanelyshotclose ups and the abundance of the “me” factor don’t help the elegance and the impact of the message.

Somebodycouldsaythatit’s not fair to compare the conformists and cowardsportrayed in “The Game of death” withsomeevolvedindividuals, includingMr. Kurzweil, who aretrailblazing the glorious future for our planet. Yetuntil we learncompassion and cooperation the upcomingwonders of technology will only make most of us miserable.

“The Singularity” has narrativefun (pedestrian as far as the latestanimationgoes) following the case of a sexy AI female Ramona who, a fewdozenyearsinto the future, courtbattles for the recognition of her individual rights as a beingequal to humans. (Allan Dershowitzmakes a wonderfulallay in her quest). It’s all fine and dandy. But how aboutsetting the clock back to 2010 and trying to get 1/3 of humansdeprived of propereducation, food and shelter to becomepossessors of full human rights as well.

In a footnote: as a huge fan of Tony Robbins I protest againstflat and borderlineridiculoususe of his persona in this film.

10/05/2010

Yesterday while working on a complex editing/linguistic/translation issue with Irene, a Chinese friend of mine, I was growling with frustration. She looked at me sharply and said: “Why don’t you do it with a smile, sine you have to do it anyway and since it’s not such a big deal”. The remark instantaneously stopped my exasperation. She was so right.

In most cases within a normal contemporary lifestyle, privileges of any given situation vastly outnumber any possible discomforts and upsets. Yet not many of us “count our blessings”. What is it within ourselves that gravitates toward the negative, that seeks holes within the whole, that tends to get high on problems rather than to celebrate that which is and works?

I recall that Catherine Firpo in her Beijing 2010 ISUD conference presentation looked at the issue from a broader cultural perspective, pondering the fact that in most cultures dominating myths, like the end of the world, are apocalyptic, dark and negative. (Soon on youtube I will start posting selected Beijing interviews/panel scenes including the Firpo remarks.)

Back to my Chinese friend: later I shared with her my recent mistake of taking an antibiotic. Her response was fast: “you are just too impatient, if you took natural remedies it would had taken longer but would be much better for you.” Of course she was right again. Why are we so ridiculously rushing at our own expense even when we know that what we are doing is wrong, dumb and dangerous? Saying that we behave this way because of self destruction is just renaming the question.

About me

I am interested in the lofty and in the mundane, in the metaphysical and in the hilarious too. My film work has recently dealt with bridging the fictitious and the documentary as well as with seeking connections between the abstract and the visual.
The projects are described at www.directing.com